Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

Because there are laws of physics there is not pure "chance" in the world -
& that is the case even when the different indeterministic features of
quantum & chaos theories are recognized. The conservation laws,
Schroedinger equation & (to a lesser extent) quantum mechanical selection
rules impose a certain amount of necessity on physical processes. What is
involved in evolution, even of the most ultra-Darwinian variety, is thus an
interplay of chance & necessity - as Peacocke, e.g., pointed out.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

> Your objection regarding the term "Darwinian" is a verbal technicality,
> Dave; my point remains the same if you change it to "neo-Darwinian means",
> or if you add in any number of newer "mechanisms" which are currently
> mooted around (drift, etc.), and call it "neo-neo-Darwinian means". All
> of them are chance mechanisms, ultimately, when all the fancy language is
> stripped away. The task of neo-neo-Darwinism, then, is to prove that
> chance can produce integrated complex systems. Behe's argument is that it
> can't. He may be right, or he may be wrong, but there is no point in
> obfuscating the issue. The choice is, and always has been (since the days
> of the ancient Greeks) "by design or by chance".
>
> The problem with TE (at least in most of its formulations) is that it is
> simply unclear about the extent of the complexity-building powers it
> allows to chance. To read TE writers, the cause of mutations etc. is sort
> of chance, and sort of God's action, and sort of neither, and sort of
> both -- that's what TE sounds like, to an outsider seeking theoretical
> clarity. It sounds vague.
>
> ID, on the other hand, is razor-sharp in clarity on that point. It draws
> a line in the sand. It says that chance is simply not sufficient. It
> says that there must be an input of intelligence. The input might be
> before the Big Bang, with no further inputs necessary (front-loaded
> naturalistic evolution). It might be at one or more points after that
> (intervention, quantum-concealed or otherwise). ID does not specify. But
> it says that the input is necessary.
>
> Tell me, Dave: do you believe that chance mechanisms -- include the whole
> passel of them if you want -- could, *utterly unguided by God or some
> other intelligence*, turn atoms into Adam, molecules into Mendel, bacteria
> into Bohr? And if you do believe that, why do you bring God into the
> picture at all? And if you don't believe that, how does your view differ
> substantially from Behe's, except in jargon?
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
>
>
>> But "purely Darwinian means" are no longer relevant in biology, unless
>> one desires to be anachronistic. Darwin, for example, had no
>> understanding of genetics, and even the rediscovery of Mendel's work is
>> now vastly superceded. I have read numerous references to irreducible
>> complexity, but they seem to represent /ipse dixit/, with various
>> experiments indicating that the complexity can be produced by natural
>> processes. Indeed, from what I've encountered, "irreducible complexity"
>> seems closely equivalent to "God of the gaps."
>> Dave (ASA)
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:24:04 -0400 "Cameron Wybrow"
>> <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>> Uhhh, Bernie ...
>>>
>>> This is not an accurate representation of Behe's thought.
>>>
>>> Let me modify your words to make them correct:
>>>
>>> > Behe 1: "I have no problem with biological evolution of humans
>>> from
>>> > apelike creatures, *or with biological evolution generally*."
>>> >
>>> > Behe 2: "Evolution *by purely Darwinian means* is impossible
>>> because of
>>> > irreducible complexity."
>>>
>>> Note that Behe 1 is entirely compatible with Behe 2.
>>>
>>> If I may add a general remark, addressed not just to Bernie but to
>>> everyone
>>> here: why are ID proponents' arguments so often misrepresented and
>>>
>>> mischaracterized here? A couple of months ago someone
>>> mischaracterized
>>> Behe, and Ted Davis had to jump in to correct the person, with an
>>> exact
>>> quotation from Behe. And over the last several months I've noticed
>>> several
>>> remarks which suggest to me that some people here are not reading
>>> the actual
>>> works of Behe, Dembski, and other ID theorists, but are criticizing
>>> them
>>> based on hearsay. I find this disturbing, especially since a number
>>> of
>>> people here have Ph.D.s. Is it not part of doctoral-level training
>>> to
>>> acquire the habit of reading sources carefully before one criticizes
>>> them?
>>>
>>> Cameron.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:59 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
>>>
>>>
>>> > Hi Ted-
>>> >
>>> > Gregory is pointing out the confusion in ID circles. Did
>>> evolution happen
>>> > or not? I suppose Behe could host a debate featuring two
>>> opponents:
>>> > himself vs. himself.
>>> >
>>> > Behe 1: "I have no problem with biological evolution of humans
>>> from
>>> > apelike creatures."
>>> >
>>> > Behe 2: "Evolution is impossible because of irreducible
>>> complexity."
>>> >
>>> > ...Bernie
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Discover how much can a college degree can change your life. Act now.
>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTL9zZz79A0uqL0m02WVqYeGxRcTXEYj937RSD37IOtNn2kCFMBY56/
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 24 22:02:13 2009